Judging by the number of hits I've been getting over the last couple of days, most of them landing on
this entry, it would seem that the entire world is worried about radiation contamination from the Japanese reactor.
I'm no expert in nuclear fuel, but I do have little use for hysterical reactions to things nuclear. It seems to me the deaths and long-term health consequences resulting from exposure to radiation cause considerably more panic than death and long-term health consequences resulting from much more mundane, more common and wide spread hazards, such as driving from point "A" to point "B". And there are a lot more of the later.
I'm not losing any sleep over it, but then again, I don't live in Japan, or Thailand, or Russia, Hong Kong or Australia, like some of my visitors do. But sheesh, people from places like Coatia, Romania, France, the Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden and Jonesboro, Georgia are worried. (Howdy, Georgia! I'd never heard of Jonesboro before. What are the chances you've ever heard of Saskatchewan before?)
Or maybe it's just curiosity.
In any case, here's some (hopefully reliable) articles about the issue at hand from a variety of perspectives:
Calm down. Japan's nuclear crisis poses no risk to B.C.
"No, there isn't a risk of a nuclear explosion. This is an energy plant, not a runaway weapon. Speaking of which, atmospheric nuclear tests by the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France and China contributed radioactive material to the atmosphere equivalent to 29,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. Test explosions took place at eight sites in the Pacific, many of them much closer to us than Japan is."
[---]
"No, it's nowhere near as serious as the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl which ranked as a seven on the seriousness scale and was the world's worst nuclear accident to date. Chernobyl, in what is now Ukraine, released a major radioactive plume across some of the most densely populated regions of Europe. The IAEA says it's highly unlikely Fukushima will become another Chernobyl."
Surgeon general clarifies position on potassium iodide as protection against nuclear radiation
"Her comments came as state and local health officials attempted to quell Californians' fears after reports of potassium iodide shortages at pharmacies and vitamin stores. Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, Los Angeles County’s public health chief, issued warnings against taking potassium iodide.
"We want to urge you not to take potassium iodide unnecessarily," Fielding said, noting that some people may be allergic and suffer side effects including intestinal upset, nausea and rashes.
"It's definitely not recommended as a precautionary medication," he said."
Nuclear radiation - You need to know about it (Contains scare video about Chernobyl)
"Radiation can damage cells and the DNA inside them through its ionizing effect. This effect happens when a high-energy carrying particle or photon removes an electron within an atom’s nucleus from its orbit, thereby changing the properties of the atom. If enough ionization occurs DNA, cell and tissue damage result.
A common example is sunburn, caused by its ultraviolet light. Mutations can result, such as melanoma and other cancers. Of course ionizing effects from nuclear radiation from radioactive materials can do the same thing."
[---]
"Nuclear radiation has a number of beneficial uses, including:
* Medicinal, such as radio therapy for cancers and X-rays
* Dating purposes (no, this not where you nuke a ‘toxic’ date)
* Level indicators and thickness gauges
* In smoke detectors and
* In tracing locations of gas or liquid leaks or
* Tracing locations of malfunctioning in the body such as a blocked kidney
* Sterilisation of medical instruments or bacteria or moulds in foods
These, and other such applications,involve low levels of radioactive compounds. However repeated exposure to X-rays is hazardous to your health because of the ionising effects of nuclear radiation."
[---]
"All radioactive substances decay over time. Some take fractions of seconds, others many thousands of years.
In theory all radio active substances stay slightly radio active and are never completely inert. That’s why it is more appropriate to use the ‘half-life’ of a radio active substance to indicate its level of radio activity. Its half life is the time it takes for its radio activity to fall by half.
For example, if the radioactivity of a radioactive substance fell by half every two years, its half life would be two years. You notice that it takes much longer for its radio activity to fall to very low levels and that after six years it would have dropped to one-eight of its radio activity.
At every step of its decay the radio active substance transforms into another substance as the composition of the nuclei in its atoms changes.
The half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. That means that within that time half of the remaining uranium 238 will have decayed."
[---]
"Given that there are some 440 nuclear reactors worldwide you’d expect the risk of radiation to be high. However, the only major nuclear accident that saw radiation escape over large areas has to date been Chernobyl.
We hope the 2011 Japanese nuclear situation will not be added.
A limited number of people died in the Chernobyl event and there are various estimates of how many people will be affected over the long term. It should be pointed out that the Chernobyl plant lacked a protective housing, unlike almost all other nuclear reactors and that the shut-down procedures followed were contra-indicated."
Each of the six articles below are detailed, balanced presentations of varying lengths on medical facts. There is no screeching hysteria nor any "nothing to see here folks" kind of denial. Some are quite technical.
Ionizing radiation - Biological effects
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects
Health risks of radiation depend on dose, duration, kind of exposure
Radiation Effects on Humans and
Effects of Radiation Levels on Human Body
Assessing the disaster's [Chernobyl] effects on human health
"UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident. However, the latest UNSCEAR reports suggest that these estimates were overstated. In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments."
Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
"Impact of the Three Mile Island Disaster
A combination of equipment failure, human error, and bad luck, the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island stunned the nation and permanently changed the nuclear industry in America. Even though it led to no immediate deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community, the TMI accident had a devastating impact on the nuclear power industry - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not reviewed an application to build a new nuclear power plant in the United States since. It also brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations.
Health Effects of Three Mile Island
Various studies on health effects, including a 2002 study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, have determined the average radiation dose to individuals near Three Mile Island at the time of the meltdown was about 1 millirem - much less than the average, annual, natural background dose for residents of the central Pennsylvania region. Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island site. A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties."
Scientists Project Path of Radiation Plume
"Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule."
[---]
"Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule."
Radiation poses only slight risk to nervous Tokyo: experts
"Watching the shifting wind direction from the nuclear plants to the city is important to assess potential radiation exposure, the United Nations weather agency said. Winds were expected over the Pacific in coming days, which could lessen levels in Tokyo. Meteorologists said it takes about six days to reach North America, and by then radiation at current levels would have largely dissipated.
WELL BELOW LETHAL
For cancer risks to be elevated, exposure would have to exceed 100 millisieverts in a year, experts say. To be lethal, the blast of radiation would have to top 5,000 millisieverts, delivered in just minutes or hours.
Measurements at the damaged plants are well below lethal at 400 millisieverts. That means unprotected workers may have been exposed to about four times the level deemed to increase the risk for cancer, or 20 times the annual exposure for some nuclear-industry employees and uranium miners.
"There are 40 people or so that are in the process of risking their lives trying to pump sea water into these plants. They are real heroes. If they get the plants full of sea water, then things will cool down and we'll be OK," Kemper said."
[---]
"INCONCLUSIVE STUDIES
Medical studies are inconclusive about the effects of low-level exposure. Most studies have looked at the cancer risk from high levels. It is much more difficult to tease out the increased risk of cancer from low-level radiation exposure from smoking and other lifestyle factors that are known to increase a person's cancer risk, scientists say.
Exposure to heavier doses of radiation over a short period causes burns or radiation sickness, triggering nausea, weakness, hair loss, skin burns and reduced organ function. A large exposure can cause premature aging or death.
The U.S. military took new steps to safeguard its personnel from radiation on Tuesday, moving arriving warships to safer waters and cautioning some forces to limit outdoor activity.
For residents of Tokyo, experts said people could take similar precautions, staying inside as much as possible.
"The reason you stay inside is you don't want to get it on your body. The radiation is only serious if you ingest it -- assuming it is low level," Kirby Kemper, a nuclear physics professor at Florida State University, said in a telephone interview.
"The ultimate concern is radiation has the ability to cause cancer. In very high doses, it can have immediate effects," said Peter Caracappa, a nuclear engineering professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York."
Radioactive plume to hit US
"A RADIOACTIVE plume spreading from stricken nuclear reactors in Japan could hit southern California on Saturday, according to a United Nations forecast - however there is expected to be little health risk."
Fukushima triggers new look at mega-quake threat
"Twenty percent of the 440 commercial reactors in operation around the globe are located in areas "of significant seismic activity," according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), an industry group.
Some of the 62 additional reactors under construction are also in quake-prone zones, along with many of the nearly 500 units on order or proposed, especially in fast-developing countries."
I'm sure there will be lessons learned from this latest nuclear power plant meltdown scare, but, all told, I am very happy I don't live in Taiwan or Vladivostok, and certainly not Tokyo, or, God forbid, Pyongyang. All those folks will be very happy the radioactive clouds are headed east, rather than west.
And by the way, the bit about the half-life of uranium 238? That's almost as old as the earth itself. Our civilization ain't gonna last that long. Neither are we humans, if all past extinctions are any indication. That fact alone makes me wonder why we're fooling around with this substance.
PS: PJTV's Trifecta guys
sum it all up.
Labels: doom and gloom, Japan, nuclear radiation, sitemeter sightings
